The Discussion Hero’s Journey
In the late summer of 2017, Northwestern University Learning Designer Jacob Guerra-Martinez contacted faculty developer David Noffs about developing a gamified discussion board called Discussion Hero. His idea was to energize online discussion boards by leveraging a game-style format that would encourage diverse points of view, questioning, challenging, and respectful debate through the use of hero and villain avatars. The basic idea behind Discussion Hero was to combine the traditional awarding of points with a gamified progress bar allowing students to visually see how they are performing on their discussion posts in real-time and competing with each other to reach higher status on a leaderboard.
Guerra-Martinez had created an Excel spreadsheet to demonstrate his idea to Noffs and they quickly set about proposing a Discussion Hero project to Northwestern University’s Provost’s office as a Digital Teaching Fellowship. They put together a proposal to develop a phased development of Discussion Hero for Canvas that would take a little more than a year to design, test, develop, and evaluate. In November of 2017, they learned that their efforts were successful and were awarded a coveted Provost’s Digital Learning Fellowship.
Phase 1. Discussion Hero as a Web-Based Activity
Knowing that they needed a proof of concept before moving into coding a Canvas-based LTI (learning tool interoperability), they created a series of web pages that were embedded into the Canvas course. First, the teacher chose a discussion topic or topics where Discussion Hero would be used in the course. Students then chose their own avatar and role from lists made available in the avatar and role questionnaire (a simple Canvas quiz). Their new identities were anonymous unless the students and teacher decided otherwise. There were only two roles with them choosing between Heroes or Villains.
Next, students joined the discussion on whatever the topic was and participated in the discussion board with their role in mind. They were encouraged to have fun and always be respectful of each other. Students were provided general descriptions of how heroes and villains might behave within the discussion, however, scripts were not used.
However, while heroes stated their position/s and provided support for those positions and other defenders of their position, it was clear they could not thrive without Villains. Villains were the adversaries who challenged heroes, making them stronger with each and every confrontation. Villains played a very necessary role in creating rich and dynamic discussions. Villains often took a controversial position on a topic or just a different perspective. Villains were sometimes mischievous or simply played the devil’s advocate as they debated the heroes, questioning their assertions while providing counter information that they also needed to support in some way. Beyond that, students were free to develop their character however they saw fit.
Students were rated using five criteria that scored the frequency of their posts, the quality of their initial post, responses to their posts from other students, i.e., how much their activity drives the discussion, content & references, and mechanics, such as spelling and grammar. While some of these criteria required the teacher to manually rate them, others were originally intended to be automated with simple programming algorithms in planned future versions of the activity. The scoring spreadsheet (see below) was used to input values and generate a percentage rating for each student. This rating was then used to update the leaderboard. The original default Discussion Hero rubric and scoring spreadsheet are shown below. Teachers were given the option of using their own rubrics and score sheets if they chose.
As can be seen on the original Discussion Hero Leaderboard below, Heroes and Villains were shown in groupings with individual student ratings shown in the rows next to their avatars. Ratings were shown by the small hero and villain tokens which represented 10% of the total possible score. As students received more tokens on the leaderboard, their status increased until they received ten tokens at which point they reached either Superhero or Supervillain status, depending on which role they chose. Students then received digital badges with their hero or villain status at the end of the activity or course.
Discussion Hero was piloted in Noffs’ own course in the spring of 2018. It was used in a discussions during week seven of a ten-week course. The results were extremely positive. Compared to the previous discussion, there was a 26% increase in participation, with many taking roles that were different from what they normally would assume, i.e.most students actually asked to take on villain roles. Survey results showed an overwhelmingly positive response. 67% of respondents claimed they were motivated to participate more than in a regular discussion, and over 90% of the class said they would like or be willing to use the activity in other courses. Many students stated that the role of the villain made them feel comfortable enough to state ideas they may have otherwise kept to themselves. One student stated that “In choosing a villain, I felt a bit more comfortable making pointed statements without seeming overly critical.” Others said that they, “… enjoyed the low risk, competitive aspects.” Another commented that “I loved the leaderboard, it was really inspiring and motivating for me!” And yet another student stated that “I think the argumentative nature made the discussion posts more entertaining and interactive.”
One example of student engagement with Discussion Hero occurred during an online graduate course in the Information, Design, and Strategy (IDS) program in the School of Professional Studies called Effective Communication. Students participated in the Discussion Hero activity in week two of the course and were asked to discuss five dimensions on which an audience can be analyzed. One student took on the persona of “Darth”. Throughout the discussion, the student used villain terms related to their character (“dark side,” “force”) when challenging other students’ posts or asking questions. They even took the five dimensions and provided context from their own character’s perspective, enriching the conversation by showing how the character’s values could be transposed on each dimension. For example, Darth wrote,
Allied, but not the Rebel Alliance. My workforce must be in 100% agreement with me in order for us to work together to achieve a win. Any doubts, discontent or weakness will not be tolerated. With building projects as large as the ones I manage, everyone must be of one (dark) mind.
In response, a hero called “Constructo” countered,
Hello Lord Vader, while I am certain that your communication approach has served you well (evidenced by the massive death star that you own), I might suggest you try easing up on the demands and need for absolute loyalty and subservience. You might find that with a little freedom your followers might come to you with some inspiring ideas, like not building a death star with such obvious vulnerabilities. Remember that you too once weren’t always so dark. Maybe there’s a little light inside that could help take your goals of domination to the next level?
I will be on my way now, I mean you no disrespect… wait, what are you doing? I can’t breathe! I was just trying to be constructive! Give me another chance Lord Vader! I am sorry for being insubordinate! It will never happen again I promise!
This little piece of banter proves that not only can students give insightful commentary, but they can do it while still having fun.
Despite the positives, however, challenges lay ahead. One student refused to participate because it was not “adult” enough, and others bemoaned the lack of instant gratification (it still took manual updating of the leaderboard until programming was completed). Still, others wanted to see more flexibility in their roles. But despite these obstacles, Discussion Hero had come a long way in just over a year. Students and teachers wanted a bona fide alternative to shake up those boring discussions here at Northwestern. And the best was yet to come!
Phase 2. The Quest for a Code Based Prototype
To be continued…